NCSJ- Ivanov Assesses Pre-Summit Relations

Russian Foreign Minister Reviews Pre-Summit Relations with USA

BBC Monitoring

Source: Russian Public TV (ORT), Moscow, in Russian 1830 gmt 12 May 02

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has reiterated his country's views on a strategic partnership with the USA and what it entails as far as the fight against international terrorism and arms control agreements are concerned. The remarks were made in the context of the upcoming Russian-US summit in Moscow on 23-26 May. Ivanov also talked about the recent terrorist act in Dagestan, which coincided with Victory Day celebrations throughout Russia, and the new relationship that is developing with NATO.The following is an excerpt from a wide-ranging report in the "Vremena" programme broadcast on Russian Public TV (ORT) on 12 May. Subheadings have

been inserted editorially.

[Presenter Vladimir Pozner] The Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, on 5 May completed his four-day visit to Washington. The aim of his visit was to put in train the final preparations ahead of a summit meeting between President Bush and President Putin. It will take place both in Moscow and St Petersburg on 23-26 May. Russia-USA summit expectations It is expected that two documents will be signed. The first is a declaration on new strategic relations between Russia and the United States of America. The second is an agreement on strategic offensive arms cuts. Given the importance of the future meeting for both countries, and not only for them but for the whole of world politics, we have decided to devote today's programme to the issue of Russian-American relations. Let me introduce our guest. He is Russian Foreign Minister Igor Sergeyevich Ivanov...

Terrorist act in Dagestan

We shall begin our programme with the tragic event of Victory Day, 9 May, in Kaspiysk [Dagestan]... In your view, Igor Sergeyevich, what were the aims of the organizers of this terrorist act?
[Igor Ivanov] I think that the organizers of all terrorist crimes - and they are crimes - aim first of all to destabilize the situation, to instill in public opinion fear, terror and disbelief in its own strength, and in those murky waters to resolve their problems. The fact is that all crimes are interconnected. Take terrorists, extremists, religious extremists, the drugs trade, organized crime - they are all in close collaboration. It is something we have spoken about time and time again, that they are the new threats and challenges with which all countries are faced today, to a greater or lesser degree. And in order to oppose them, we, the international community, must join forces... Future treaties, agreements with USA

[Vladimir Pozner] Igor Sergeyevich, the document that will be signed [at the Russia-USA summit], from the point of view of Russia, what will it be - a treaty or an agreement? Because these are different things.

[Igor Ivanov] At this stage this issue is still being discussed but the Russian side thinks that it should be a treaty. But the main thing is that, be it a treaty or an agreement, it will be a legally binding document which requires ratification both in the United States and in the Russian Federation.

[Vladimir Pozner] Even an agreement?

[Igor Ivanov] Absolutely correct. An agreement as well. The only difference is that, to ratify a treaty, a two-thirds majority is required by US procedures whereas a simple majority is required for an agreement, which indicates the significance of these documents. Therefore, we think that due to the importance of the issue covered by that document, it should be a treaty. But I would like to say once again that this matter has not yet been decided...

[Vladimir Pozner] Igor Sergeyevich, the question is as follows: will there, all the same, be some kind of linkup between the treaty on strategic offensive weapons [START] and the development of a national antimissile defence system in America? Will these things be linked? Russian-US partnership

[Igor Ivanov] If you permit me, I would like to return to certain previous questions and comments that were made here.

[Vladimir Pozner] Please do, of course.

[Igor Ivanov] Statements were made that the United States needs some kind of document to create some kind of outward appearance. That is, from the very beginning, the new American administration stated "we do not regard each other as enemies, as opponents. We wish to build relations based on partnership, and treaties and agreements are not required between partners. Why do we need treaties at all?" And this question was there during the highest-level talks too. Nonetheless, taking into account the importance of the problem of strategic offensive weapons, we said all the same that "of course we are ready to build relations based on partnership, but, as one Russian saying mastered by one of the previous presidents [Ronald Reagan] goes - `trust, but check' [Russian: doveryay no proveryay] - let's all the same trust and for the time being simultaneously check, and when we reach a level of such trust where there is no need to check, then we won't check." Therefore, this was not an insistent request from the American side, but we put the question - that there was a need for a treaty - because what obtains? - START - START-1 came to an end last year, although it will be in effect until 2009. START-2 is not working in connection with the fact that the United States has not ratified it - (? it leaves) the treaty on antimissile defence and a vacuum is formed, a very important and crucial point in the area of armaments control, including nuclear arms. Therefore, we considered that it was very important to begin these talks and to reach certain understandings, certain principles, criteria. This is not a full stop, but a continuation of the process, and the talks will be continued, but at this stage we must register the accords that we can reach today, and then continue. You ask if there will be a link between offensive and defensive [weapons]. It has already been stressed that such a linkup between offensive and defensive - and antimissile defence is directly related to defensive weapons - this link was registered at the meeting of our presidents [George Bush and Vladimir Putin] in Genoa, and this idea will be reflected in both the political declaration that you were talking about and in the document on cutting back on strategic offensive weapons...

Fight against international terrorism

[Vladimir Pozner] Mr Ivanov, what is your attitude to the statement on raising somewhat the number of axes of evil and these three countries being added?

[Igor Ivanov] Today our countries, both the USA, Russia and the overwhelming majority of countries in the world, come across common threats and challenges. These are, first of all, terrorism, which causes suffering to all of us, and other threats related to the danger posed by the spreading and the proliferation [Russian: raspolzaniye] of weapons of mass destruction. We can imagine what would happen if these weapons of mass destruction ended up in the hands of extremists or terrorists, what the scale of the tragedy would then be. We therefore support the unifying of efforts of the international community. We took a historic step after 11 September. Since the end of World War II, there has never been such a unity in the international community, in a single coalition fighting against a common enemy. It was the Nazi regime during World War II and now it is terrorism. Not accidentally did the Russian president compare terrorists to Nazis. Terrorism is a threat of the same scale and facing this threat now we have to unite our efforts. We believe, however, that specific religions, nations or countries should not be identified with terrorism. It is necessary to have very precise information on this matter in order to have a clear

vision of our goals and the means chosen to achieve these goals and tasks. Therefore, as US State Secretary Colin Powell stressed, these topics are being constantly discussed between us and we believe that the UN should be the main, the central venue for discussions on these issues and it should be given a leading role inthis process...

Tackling disagreements with USA

[Vladimir Pozner] Igor Sergeyevich, do you agree with such a position?

[Igor Ivanov] First of all I would like to say that we do have and can have disagreements. This is natural. There are disagreements between allies and there are different points of view. The question is how to overcome these disagreement . If the United States has a concern that there could be a leak from Russia of some technologies that could be used to create weapons of mass destruction, there are many channels through which we could exchange information in order to find out how true this information is and how well founded these concerns are. If they are well founded, we will take decisions together in order to close possible channels of illegal proliferation of information. If they are not, these concerns should be put to rest. hat one should not allow, we think, is unfounded accusations, simply unsubstantiated accusations like the ones made during years gone by. If there is anything, let us meet, discuss and see to what extent they are founded or unfounded. This is the form of work the US secretary of state and I are trying to conduct...

[Vladimir Pozner] But the question is still about bringing down the threshold, about creating small nuclear devices. Igor Sergeyevich, do you not see a danger in this, because as soon as the level is brought down, in the sense of being able to strike more precisely or of the device being cleaner, doesn't the temptation to use it arise?

[Igor Ivanov] First of all, I would like - if you will permit me - to return to your previous question about missile defence. In negotiations with our US partners, the US side stresses that the missile defence system they are planning to create - we are still at the stage of studying it, so it is early to say what the precise format will be - will be of a limited nature. It is very important that stress is laid on the fact that this will not pose a threat to Russia's strategic forces and to the global strategic balance. This is of fundamental importance. I hope that in the course of the negotiations we shall be able to state those principles in the declaration we are going to adopt during President Bush's visit to Russia, and those principles - if they are stated - will be put into practice. As for your second question, of course I see such a threat to be a real one. The further we go along the path of creating mini nuclear weapons the greater the probability that such mini nuclear weapons may fall - even if they are not used, as the US secretary of state was just saying - but they may fall into the hands of forces which could be tempted to use or threaten the use of such weapons to attain their ends. And we are well aware of the kind of world we live in. And so our view is not to go down the road of creating mini-mini nuclear bombs, but rather to work together on strengthening the regime of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and the rest...

Relations with NATO

[Vladimir Pozner] Igor Sergeyevich, still, Russia-NATO, how do you understand this?

[Igor Ivanov] My understanding is very close to what the secretary of state just said, because we have been discussing this for a long time and constantly. In two days' time we will have a meeting of foreign ministers of Russia and NATO [Reykjavik], where we hope to conclude the preparation of a document which will then be submitted to the heads of state of Russia and NATO for signing in Rome on 28 May.The essence of the agreements which we are drafting is to set up a now body. This is a council of Russia and NATO, in which the NATO member states, as individual countries, and Russia, on the basis of equal say - therefore the format is not called 19-plus-one but 20 - discuss, on the basis of equal say, the issues they designate for discussion - for example, the fight against terrorism, or matters related to dealing with emergencies, and so on, altogether about 10 subjects - where we discuss on the basis of equal say, take decision and work jointly to implement them. This is the special nature of the new body that is being created. It is not a consultative body but an executive one, if you will. Here we somehow open a new script, open a new field for cooperation. Yes, all our countries, both those in NATO and not in NATO, face the same threat. Let us use the resources of NATO and the resources of Russia and try to resolve these issues together. This is the aim and role of the new body that is being set up...

[Vladimir Pozner] Talking of the USA, in your view which wing is likely to come out on top?

[Igor Ivanov] You know - and I'm not saying this because the secretary of state made this point, and with me being a minister we are counterparts - but I want to back what he was saying in the following way: Of course there are differing points of view, and of course there are arguments. And I make no secret of the fact that we too have arguments. But it is the president who takes the final decision. So I would say that I fully concur with the secretary of state, because I myself have had the opportunity to meet the president. He proceeds from the premise of building relations of strategic partnership with Russia on a long-term basis. And indeed the document we are going to sign - the declaration on a new framework for strategic relations - is intended precisely to lay down the principles on which we are going to build our political, economic, military-strategic and humanitarian relations. So it is a document of fundamental importance.

[Vladimir Pozner] Today - yes today - I read an article in the New York Times with the headline: It is being said in the USA that Russia is preparing nuclear tests. The article talks about closed hearings in the Senate and the House of Representatives at which administration representatives briefed congressmen about alarming intelligence data showing that test preparations are under way at the Novaya Zemlya nuclear test site. Can you comment on this?

[Igor Ivanov] Unfortunately statements of this kind surface periodically and without foundation in various committees of the US Congress. We express our bewilderment about such matters to the administration through various channels, asking what basis such and such a figure has for making such irresponsible statements, if we really are striving to build a new strategic relationship based on mutual trust and mutual respect. So this is another such report which will once again require us to make that kind of response. But you know, this doesn't surprise me. After all, it is not as though somebody took a decision and from that day on everything changed and all the bad guys suddenly became good. As though a command had been given in 1991 to end the Cold War and everyone immediately forgot the Cold War and began living according to new principles. Of course there are people who still live according to the categories of the Cold War; of course there are people who see our country as an opponent and not a partner; of course there are people who want to crank up the machine of the military-industrial complex, investing billions and billions in it. All of this is true. There is good and evil - [Vladimir Pozner, interrupting, to applause and laughter] It sounds as though you are quoting Marx... Igor Sergeyevich, if we pursue that line of argument, can it then be said that you are in favour of signing a bad agreement?

[Igor Ivanov] First of all, I would like to say that I fully share Pavel Leonardovich's [previous speaker] point of view that a bad agreement should not be signed. Importance of agreements with the USA

[Vladimir Pozner] Everybody, I think, agrees with that. The question is: what constitutes a bad agreement?

[Igor Ivanov] Quite so. Second, nobody is going to put forward a bad agreement to be signed. Third, of course we can take the path some people propose - let us have no documents at all. This is also a solution. Everyone will live according to their rules. But, for instance, I think that this path will lead to even more chaos in weapons control. Therefore, today we might not be able to adopt a comprehensive document which will meet all those criteria enumerated in your chart, with which we are very well familiar. But if we can agree on certain things which do not infringe the interests of either of the parties - does an agreement that the number of nuclear warheads shall be between 2,200 and 1,700 in 10 years infringe the interests of Russia or the USA? We state our goal. Yes, we have disagreements over what to include and so on. But we state our goal - we are moving towards reduction rather than an increase. And, of course, there will be additional negotiations as that process progresses. And then we are not stopping that process. After all, what is the danger here? It can be argued that START-2 is good or bad. I disagree that that treaty was the main irritant in our relations. I disagree with that. Well, it did not come to pass. By the way, we had our own opponents to START-2. However, together we managed to persuade them that that treaty was needed. We ratified it. And I think we did the right thing. Politically, we only gained from it. As for START-3, we have prepared it. I cannot say that we have engaged in protracted negotiations. It was, rather, precisely the desire to maintain the process of negotiations and the process of reduction in strategic offensive arms. However, all that is now history. We have START-1, which will be in force until 2009, and then there will be a pause, a vacuum or whatever you call it. Therefore, today we are about to sign - I would not call it an overly ambitious document - but a vital document - [Vladimir Pozner] A real one at that - [Igor Ivanov] - and a real one from the point of view of continuing the process of control over weapons and stating those goals and tasks we are aiming at. From this viewpoint, I think that it is a vital document...

Foreign policy

[Vladimir Pozner] The Russian Federation's foreign policy blueprint, which was endorsed by President Putin in July 2000 if I'm not mistaken, in summer 2000, says the following: The international situation at the turn of the 21st century made it necessary to review the general situation around the Russian Federation, the priorities of Russian foreign policy and the possibilities for resourcing that policy. Alongside a certain strengthening of the Russian Federation's international position, negative tendencies have also appeared, and certain assumptions about the formation of new mutually beneficial relations of partnership based on equality of rights have proved to be unfounded. That was in the year 2000. So tell us, please, Igor Sergeyevich, is that still true today?

[Igor Ivanov] I should like to say first and foremost that that blueprint, the analysis made in the preamble - and I believe it fully reflected the real picture that existed in the world - related to the 1990s, that is, the period following the Soviet Union, and the transformations that had taken place in the world situation and around Russia. And just as a doctor needs to make a correct diagnosis before prescribing the medicine, so our purpose in drawing up that blueprint was to set out a correct diagnosis: where we stood, what kind of world we found ourselves in, what resources we realistically had at our disposal, and how to tackle the priority tasks confronting us. So, on the basis of that analysis a scale of foreign policy values and priorities was drawn up. Naturally the primary one was safeguarding national security. The second was to create favourable conditions for the continuation of political and economic reforms in the country. The third was to defend the interests of our citizens and compatriots abroad. The fourth was to assist our business, our economy in integrating into the world market. So the conclusions we drew and the tasks we set ourselves flowed from that analysis, and I would say that that assessment retains its relevance today...

[Vladimir Pozner] Igor Sergeyevich, is it true that, if one's stance is always like this - always ready to oblige - then practice shows that you are left out of the team, as is well-known. Is it not fair to say that, they say, we are always ready to please? There is that feeling. [Igor Ivanov] Statements such as always ready to appease or to salute and do it are, perhaps, a good sound bite and are effective journalistically. As a professional, however, I usually only operate on the basis of facts. Perhaps, scholars should do the same [reference to a previous speaker]. So when these loud statements are made, what is usually cited in those materials? First, that we made some concessions or did something like it. For example, the USA abandoned the 1972 ABM Treaty, and Russia made concessions or acquiesced. What concessions or in what way did it acquiesce? Article 15 of the ABM Treaty provides for the right to withdraw from the treaty. It is that right that the USA made use of. In every way we tried to prevent it. What is more, on three occasions the UN General Assembly voted in support of the ABM Treaty. Eighty countries were in favour; the USA, Israel and Micronesia were against. Washington, thus, took that attitude not in relation to Russia, but in relation to the international community. In what way was it a concession? Second, they say that we have withdrawn our naval base from Cam Ranh and thus met the USA halfway. What has the USA got to do with it? I led the negotiations. They were our bilateral negotiations with Vietnam. In 10 years, not a single naval ship has called in at that base. Why should we maintain that base? Vietnam said they would close it and would use it for peaceful ends. We reached agreement and closed it. They now say it was a concession to the USA. In Lourdes, in Cuba, a station had been in existence for 40 years. In the opinion of the military experts, it was no longer performing the functions for which it had been created. So we reached agreement and closed it down. It is now presented as a gift to Washington. What gift?

[Vladimir Pozner] So are you dismissing these charges?

[Igor Ivanov] I think that it not only does not correspond to reality, but that it is at times simply more in the realm of political [changes thought] - how can I put it mildly, I can only think of a word that does not belong in the diplomatic lexicon...

Coming Bush-Putin summit

[Vladimir Pozner] What does the summit of President Bush and President Putin mean for Russia mostly - is it the strengthening of partnership relations or the assertion of its special geopolitical role? [Sergey Ivanov] I think that you have highlighted absolutely correctly two central aspects. [First],Russian-American relations, which are important not just for our two countries. No matter what is said, to a great extent Russian-American relations define the world political climate, both in terms of strategic stability and in terms of the ensuing processes of the formation of a new world order. Second, it is of course the assertion of Russia's independent role and its unique face in the new world. I believe there are fewer critics now, including in Russia, who doubt that Russia should have such a unique face, taking into consideration its own history, considering its geopolitical interests, considering its religion, if you like, culture, and considering its interests today...